Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2020/02/15 13:37:23
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
My distinction is if it has ray guns, then it's Sci fi, if its got bow and arrows and spears, it's fantasy (I know 40k has spears too, but the Ray guns is the arbiter.)
Also, saying conceptually possible is blurry. The existence of deities can't currently be disproven. Who's to say that if we ever went into space we wouldn't find the warp, or gates to hell on phobos?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/15 13:41:05
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children
Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs
2020/02/15 17:36:41
Subject: Re:If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Bran Dawri wrote: I think the most commonly accepted distinction is that for it to be considered scifi it should be conceptually possible within the framework of science as we know it.
Not to be a complete dink on this, but, please no. This is at best the line of hard scifi. I'm a fan of a lot of really early sci fi, the only thing that ever marked it as sci fi most of the time was crediting some unknown science principles and studying it to better understand it and building out from there. It's only not fantasy because it's not gods and monsters most of the time. The focus isn't fate and or magic, it's on invention and understanding.
That's been what marks scifi out from fantasy to me. Which still leaves 40k sitting in the middle somewhere, which is a huge reason of why I love the backwards lunatic of a galaxy that it is. But watching people try to gate keep sci fi to some small section of feasible science has been painful to me. Stupid bs drives infinitely more interest, fun and pushes people who grow up with it to try and investigate how to make that stupid button in star trek a reality even if it's contrary to a lot of modern understanding that it could even exist. Breaking scientific rules is how we get better scientific rules, we should encourage it.
But at the same time, it's a genre, what people look for in it is always going to be different for people. May as well argue what constitutes Metal for the wind that'll come out of all of us, which I'd also argue 40k leans heavily on and that's not even a genre of fiction... and if I'm wrong on that correct me as I think I'd be heavily into it.
2020/02/16 03:09:37
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
I tend to see it as a sliding scale between aesthetic and narrative.
Star wars treats science as an aesthetic, like the modern steam punk movement. Put cogs on it and it's steampunk. Star wars uses science as a set dressing. It doesn't matter how hyperdrive works or the effect it has on society or that blasters fire plasma. Those components are just chrome for the story which is about people and politics.
I, robot on the other hand treats science as an important narrative device because it explores it and examines the consequences of the creation of and use of these proposed scientific advances.
At its extreme, you can take an existing story and 'reskin' it in many different themes - it's hamlet in space (therefore the focus is on hamlet and not why being in space is an interesting advancement), or it's Jane Austin but zombies, etc.
You could tell star wars as a naval story with a fast catamaran as the millenium Falcon and a new steampowred super dreadnought as the death star. Because the story beats aren't really integral to the aesthetic.
But when the science fiction itself is integral and often the point of the narrative, that's when it becomes what I consider science fiction.
While I enjoy all other styles of SciFi, I would consider most to be space operas.
Aesthetic <-----> narrative
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/16 03:11:01
I’d add a plotline where some Squats excavated a former Men of Iron facility which suddenly reactivated and commenced full scale production including hidden facilities on nearby planets. In a very short time the Squat race is revitalised and they form an unlike coalition with the Men of Iron. This results in the return of AI to the 40k universe on a large scale.
I will not rest until the Tabletop Imperial Guard has been reduced to complete mediocrity. This is completely reflected in the lore.
2020/03/03 17:25:23
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
2020/03/04 00:29:58
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
I personally like the way the lore has advanced, but I think it's in an inbetween phase atm. GW both want to advance the story forward and not kill off any of the big names.
For Obvious reasons, killing the Primarchs or Abbadon is probably plot armoured to much to kill. But I think the chapter masters like Calgar or The Red Corsair should be fair game.
You can't advance a story line in "the grim dark of the far future" when it has 50-100 characters who are practically invincible from a story standpoint across all the races.
They need to chose, do they continue to advance the story and kill characters and change the setting more so then it already has (something I'd like to see personally) or go back to it being a semi static setting it was before.
To answer the titles question, They need to kill named characters, even if they have models. It's the only way to have a sense of stakes in those big battles GW loves so much.
2020/03/04 00:44:55
Subject: Re:If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Tyzarion_Kronius wrote: Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
You're being sarcastic right?
2020/03/04 03:52:12
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
I’d like it if Abaddon kills the Emperor, fixes the astonomicon, commissions 20 armies of super warriors totally committed to him, then purges his chaos corrupted old legions and begins a galactic crusade to reunite mankind and clear his new imperium of xenos and corruption.
With success assured, Abaddon returns to Terra to work on a webway project which will allow humanity to finally be free from the perils of the warp. During his absence his mightiest and most trusted general rises up against him and throws the galaxy into civil war.
Abaddon slays the ringleader, but is mortally wounded in the process, interred onto the Golden Throne. So begins a ten thousand year long guerilla war by the rebels and, imprisoned on his chair, Abaddon goes mad as he realise he was just a pawn in an eternal cyclical process.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/04 10:55:15
2020/03/04 15:37:09
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Tyzarion_Kronius wrote: Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
You're being sarcastic right?
Maybe he's satirizing all the people claiming the IoM needs to suffer giant losses by turning the shoe on the other foot?
that said there's a germ of an intreasting story in the idea of a IoM offensive that pushes right into the eye...
Imagine this, start a campagin by building up a great IoM general, leading a sizable Indomatus crusade force. he takes planet after planet steam rolling chaos, and begins to get cocky... to the point he orders his fleet to persue a retreating chaos army right into the eye... where he fights a campaign in the eye.. mention contact being sporadic after that, and mention vague referances implying he's knocking heads, but other then that, leave it dangling for a few years.. only to have him and his army exit the rift having been turned to chaos as a major new villian.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2020/03/05 14:56:26
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Tyzarion_Kronius wrote: Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
You're being sarcastic right?
Maybe he's satirizing all the people claiming the IoM needs to suffer giant losses by turning the shoe on the other foot?
that said there's a germ of an intreasting story in the idea of a IoM offensive that pushes right into the eye...
Imagine this, start a campagin by building up a great IoM general, leading a sizable Indomatus crusade force. he takes planet after planet steam rolling chaos, and begins to get cocky... to the point he orders his fleet to persue a retreating chaos army right into the eye... where he fights a campaign in the eye.. mention contact being sporadic after that, and mention vague referances implying he's knocking heads, but other then that, leave it dangling for a few years.. only to have him and his army exit the rift having been turned to chaos as a major new villian.
Sounds interesting. But isn't that kinda what already happened with the renegade chapters from the Badab War?
2020/03/05 15:44:14
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Imagine this, start a campagin by building up a great IoM general, leading a sizable Indomatus crusade force. he takes planet after planet steam rolling chaos, and begins to get cocky... to the point he orders his fleet to persue a retreating chaos army right into the eye... where he fights a campaign in the eye.. mention contact being sporadic after that, and mention vague referances implying he's knocking heads, but other then that, leave it dangling for a few years.. only to have him and his army exit the rift having been turned to chaos as a major new villian.
Sounds interesting. But isn't that kinda what already happened with the renegade chapters from the Badab War?
I think its exactly what happens when you send troops into the eye. And what you don't want to do is invalidate peoples armies. The 2021 campaign 'into the eye' featuring the Paladins of Virtue chapter, with their unique rules and fresh background would generate a lot of mdoelling and interest.
The 2022 'out of the eye' campaign where the Dreadlords of Vice roll back into the Imperium, fresh with a bunch of gentacles and horns and evil swords would def cheese people off.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/05 15:44:36
2020/03/05 16:24:47
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Tyzarion_Kronius wrote: Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
You're being sarcastic right?
Nope. To quote where I got the idea from:
Chaos loses. I dont mean slap on the wrist loses but still wins i mean up to a chaos god DYING because of their feth up. Or chaos suffers a massive internal war as "Good" chaos gods form and start a order versus chaos war. The way chaos is written the fact that the various warbands dont destroy themselves just by existing is bs and needs a massive overhaul.
My point being in order to return stakes to 40k and fantasy chaos has to lose and lose to the point that yes that was indeed an irrecoverable loss on their part. We already have that with the imperium, technology is forever lost daily, planets destroyed, cadia gone, entire marine chapters lost in single battles. What about chaos? Nothing they never lose only win.
Or return malal to the pantheon as a sort of visible anti chaos figure, a logical evolution from chaos' self destructive behavior manifesting as chaos with in chaos as the various gods start unraveling.
Just fething something for gods sake. Chaos has won the last 15,000 years let the other players win in the lore just once.
Tyzarion_Kronius wrote: Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
You're being sarcastic right?
Nope. To quote where I got the idea from:
Chaos loses. I dont mean slap on the wrist loses but still wins i mean up to a chaos god DYING because of their feth up. Or chaos suffers a massive internal war as "Good" chaos gods form and start a order versus chaos war. The way chaos is written the fact that the various warbands dont destroy themselves just by existing is bs and needs a massive overhaul.
My point being in order to return stakes to 40k and fantasy chaos has to lose and lose to the point that yes that was indeed an irrecoverable loss on their part. We already have that with the imperium, technology is forever lost daily, planets destroyed, cadia gone, entire marine chapters lost in single battles. What about chaos? Nothing they never lose only win.
Or return malal to the pantheon as a sort of visible anti chaos figure, a logical evolution from chaos' self destructive behavior manifesting as chaos with in chaos as the various gods start unraveling.
Just fething something for gods sake. Chaos has won the last 15,000 years let the other players win in the lore just once.
So "chaos has won the last 15000 years" huh? So I guess you and whoever wrote that quote are new to all this.
May I suggest reading just some of the lore and fiction from the setting? You know there's a reason that chaos's most prominent character is referred to as "Failbaddon".
2020/03/05 18:00:20
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Tyzarion_Kronius wrote: Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
You're being sarcastic right?
Nope. To quote where I got the idea from:
Chaos loses. I dont mean slap on the wrist loses but still wins i mean up to a chaos god DYING because of their feth up. Or chaos suffers a massive internal war as "Good" chaos gods form and start a order versus chaos war. The way chaos is written the fact that the various warbands dont destroy themselves just by existing is bs and needs a massive overhaul.
My point being in order to return stakes to 40k and fantasy chaos has to lose and lose to the point that yes that was indeed an irrecoverable loss on their part. We already have that with the imperium, technology is forever lost daily, planets destroyed, cadia gone, entire marine chapters lost in single battles. What about chaos? Nothing they never lose only win.
Or return malal to the pantheon as a sort of visible anti chaos figure, a logical evolution from chaos' self destructive behavior manifesting as chaos with in chaos as the various gods start unraveling.
Just fething something for gods sake. Chaos has won the last 15,000 years let the other players win in the lore just once.
So "chaos has won the last 15000 years" huh? So I guess you and whoever wrote that quote are new to all this.
May I suggest reading just some of the lore and fiction from the setting? You know there's a reason that chaos's most prominent character is referred to as "Failbaddon".
Bad writing?
The lore has been made very clear that each Crusade has been a success. They accomplished their objectives.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
2020/03/05 19:05:16
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Tyzarion_Kronius wrote: Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
You're being sarcastic right?
Nope. To quote where I got the idea from:
Chaos loses. I dont mean slap on the wrist loses but still wins i mean up to a chaos god DYING because of their feth up. Or chaos suffers a massive internal war as "Good" chaos gods form and start a order versus chaos war. The way chaos is written the fact that the various warbands dont destroy themselves just by existing is bs and needs a massive overhaul.
My point being in order to return stakes to 40k and fantasy chaos has to lose and lose to the point that yes that was indeed an irrecoverable loss on their part. We already have that with the imperium, technology is forever lost daily, planets destroyed, cadia gone, entire marine chapters lost in single battles. What about chaos? Nothing they never lose only win.
Or return malal to the pantheon as a sort of visible anti chaos figure, a logical evolution from chaos' self destructive behavior manifesting as chaos with in chaos as the various gods start unraveling.
Just fething something for gods sake. Chaos has won the last 15,000 years let the other players win in the lore just once.
So "chaos has won the last 15000 years" huh? So I guess you and whoever wrote that quote are new to all this.
May I suggest reading just some of the lore and fiction from the setting? You know there's a reason that chaos's most prominent character is referred to as "Failbaddon".
Bad writing?
The lore has been made very clear that each Crusade has been a success. They accomplished their objectives.
Indeed. I'd still like to see something for Chaos that's not a pyrrhic victory as usual . So, unlike Tyzarion I'd say it would be nice to see the Imperium lose for once... I mean really lose. Not "unknown space marine chapter goes down against ten times the number in CSM". Abby comes, sieges a planet, wipes all Primaris reinforcements, Typhus purges the planet for generations and they move on to the next planet. A real victory for once. Even the Fall of Cadia came across as a fail. They wrote the preceding crusades as preparations for Cadia, a plan built up for 10000 years - and then nothing seemed to work, all ground forces lost against a hilariously small number of guardsmen and Abby had to sacrifice one of his Blackstone fortresses. Really not a good showing. Same with Magnus' attack on Fenris.
2020/03/05 20:10:08
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Tyzarion_Kronius wrote: Chaos needs a big loss that cripples it. The setting is not as fun as it could be if Chaos gets to win all the time without bit losses. It makes it utterly predictable. As such I propose a book series where one or two Chaos gods are killed by the Emperor and coordinated efforts of humanity leading to a war where Chaos is for the first time on defense as their precious little eye of terror is invaded by the Holy Crusade which at least cripples Chaos leading them to rebuilding their power for entire millenia.
You're being sarcastic right?
Nope. To quote where I got the idea from:
Chaos loses. I dont mean slap on the wrist loses but still wins i mean up to a chaos god DYING because of their feth up. Or chaos suffers a massive internal war as "Good" chaos gods form and start a order versus chaos war. The way chaos is written the fact that the various warbands dont destroy themselves just by existing is bs and needs a massive overhaul.
My point being in order to return stakes to 40k and fantasy chaos has to lose and lose to the point that yes that was indeed an irrecoverable loss on their part. We already have that with the imperium, technology is forever lost daily, planets destroyed, cadia gone, entire marine chapters lost in single battles. What about chaos? Nothing they never lose only win.
Or return malal to the pantheon as a sort of visible anti chaos figure, a logical evolution from chaos' self destructive behavior manifesting as chaos with in chaos as the various gods start unraveling.
Just fething something for gods sake. Chaos has won the last 15,000 years let the other players win in the lore just once.
So "chaos has won the last 15000 years" huh? So I guess you and whoever wrote that quote are new to all this.
May I suggest reading just some of the lore and fiction from the setting? You know there's a reason that chaos's most prominent character is referred to as "Failbaddon".
Bad writing?
The lore has been made very clear that each Crusade has been a success. They accomplished their objectives.
Indeed. I'd still like to see something for Chaos that's not a pyrrhic victory as usual . So, unlike Tyzarion I'd say it would be nice to see the Imperium lose for once... I mean really lose. Not "unknown space marine chapter goes down against ten times the number in CSM". Abby comes, sieges a planet, wipes all Primaris reinforcements, Typhus purges the planet for generations and they move on to the next planet. A real victory for once. Even the Fall of Cadia came across as a fail. They wrote the preceding crusades as preparations for Cadia, a plan built up for 10000 years - and then nothing seemed to work, all ground forces lost against a hilariously small number of guardsmen and Abby had to sacrifice one of his Blackstone fortresses. Really not a good showing. Same with Magnus' attack on Fenris.
Don't the Cadians have a new homeworld? When Angron and Fulgrim get released, have them, Kharn, Lucius (another character that badly needs a plastic model), and the entirety of both the World Eaters and the Emperor's Children come along and turn it into a daemon world. The Cadians of course live on, but with much fewer numbers, and become an elite army, something like an Imperial Guard version of the Grey Knights.
2020/03/05 20:12:14
Subject: If you could change one thing about the 40k setting what would it be?
Partially revert lore changes, some should still be slaves to the star-gods, maybe their stats change slightly so slaves are more docile.
Basically there's an civil-war between the slave-empires and the god-enslavers, but never confirmed or acknowledged outside of Necron lore and only alluded to in Eldar lore.
One deluded Necron Faction might try to return their bodies to flesh or grant sentience to their subjects.
All Star-Gods would be seeking to reunite their shards of self into one powerful whole.
A shard of the Void Dragon was stolen by Tech-Priest radicals, now slaves to its will.
The Deceiver has been fooling men into joining his ranks of Pariah.
Note, I wouldn't be against changes to their design, insect heads, snake tails, snouts, 4 arms, etc.
I'm happy with those ideas.
The severed needs a lot more love, that's for certain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/05 20:15:29
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children 
. So, unlike Tyzarion I'd say it would be nice to see the Imperium lose for once... I mean really lose. Not "unknown space marine chapter goes down against ten times the number in 
~4100
~1660